Manyan Ƙasashe Huɗu Masu Ƙarfi sun himmatu ga Zionism. Kuma Zionism, ko daidai ne ko kuskure, mai kyau ko mara kyau, an kafa shi ne a kan al'adu na tsawon shekaru, da buƙatun yanzu, da buri na gaba, waɗanda suka fi muhimmanci sosai fiye da sha'awoyi da son zuciyar Larabawa 700,000 [Falasdinu] da ke zaune a yanzu a wannan tsohuwar ƙasa. (Arthur James Balfour, wanda Nutting ya ambata, 2013)

The four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far greater import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 [Palestine] Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. (Arthur James Balfour, cited in Nutting 2013)

Mulkin mallaka irin na Zionist na mazauna wuri yana a zuciyar rikicin da ake yi a Falasɗin; mulkin mallaka na mazauna wuri tsari ne, ba wani lamari na wucin gadi ba (Wolfe 2006). Mulkin mallaka na Zionist na mazauna wuri yana da tushe mai zurfi a cikin mulkin mallaka na Turai. Suna watsi da wanzuwar da haƙƙoƙin 'yan asalin ƙasa, masu mulkin mallaka na Birtaniya sau da yawa suna ganin manyan sassan duniya a matsayin terra nullius, wato 'ƙasar kowa ba'. Wannan magana (wadda asalinta daga dokar Romawa take) an yi amfani da ita wajen bayyana yankin da ba ya ƙarƙashin ikon kowace ƙasar Turai ba. Ikon mallakar yankin da ke terra nullius na iya samuwa ta hanyar mamayewa da/ko mulkin mallaka ta hanyar zama a wurin.

Zionist settler-colonialism is at the heart of the conflict in Palestine; settler-colonialism is a structure not an episode (Wolfe 2006). Zionist settler-colonialism is deeply rooted in European colonialism. Ignoring the existence and rights of indigenous peoples, British colonialists often saw large parts of the earth as terra nullius, ‘nobody’s land’. This (originally Roman legal) expression was used to describe territory which was not subject to the sovereignty of any European state – sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius may be acquired through occupation and/ or settler-colonisation.

Lokacin da a ƙarshen karni na 19 a Turai "ƙabilanci na Zionism" ya taso a matsayin ƙarfin siyasa da ke kira ga mamaye Falasdinu ta hanyar sanya mazauna da kuma "tara dukan Yahudawa", ba a kula sosai da cewa Falasdinu tuni tana da mazauna ba. Lallai, Shirin Basel da aka amince da shi a Taron Zionism na Farko, wanda ya kaddamar da Zionism na siyasa a shekarar 1897, bai ambaci al'ummar Falasdinawa na asali ba lokacin da ya bayyana manufar motsin: "kafa wata gida mai tsaro a bisa doka da kuma a bainar jama'a a Falasdinu ga al'ummar Yahudawa".

When in the late 19th century European ‘Zionism nationalism’ arose as a political force calling for the settler-colonisation of Palestine and the ‘gathering of all Jews’, little attention was paid to the fact that Palestine was already populated. Indeed, the Basel Programme adopted at the First Zionist Congress, which launched political Zionism in 1897, made no mention of a Palestinian indigenous population when it spelled out the movement’s objective: ‘the establishment of a publicly and legally secured home in Palestine for the Jewish people’.

Bugu da haka, a farkon shekarun ƙoƙarin Sahyoniyawa na neman goyon baya ga shirinsu, sun yaɗa a Yamma tatsuniyar wariyar launin fata ta "ƙasa babu mutane ga mutane babu ƙasa", wani take da Israel Zangwill ya shahara da shi, wani fitaccen marubuci Bature-Bayahude wanda jaridun Birtaniya sukan ambace shi a matsayin mai magana da yawun Sahyoniyanci kuma ɗaya daga cikin mutanen farko da suka shirya motsin Sahyoniyanci a Birtaniya. Har a shekarar 1914, Chaim Weizmann, wanda zai zama shugaban farko na Isra'ila kuma wanda, tare da Theodor Herzl da David Ben-Gurion, yana cikin mutum uku da suka fi taka rawa wajen mayar da mafarkin Sahyoniyanci gaskiya, ya bayyana cewa:

Moreover, in the early years of their efforts to secure support for their enterprise, the Zionists propagated in the West the racist myth of ‘a land without a people for a people without a land’, a slogan popularised by Israel Zangwill, a prominent Anglo-Jewish writer often quoted in the British press as a spokesman for Zionism and one of the earliest organisers of the Zionist movement in Britain. Even as late as 1914, Chaim Weizmann, who was to become the first President of Israel and who, along with Theodor Herzl and David Ben-Gurion, was one of the three men most responsible for turning the Zionist dream into reality, stated:

A forma ta farko, Sahyoniyanci an tsara shi ne daga masu jagorancinsa a matsayin wani motsi da ya dogara gaba ɗaya ga abubuwan inji: akwai wata ƙasa da ake kira Falasɗinu, ƙasar da babu mutane a cikinta, kuma a ɗaya ɓangaren kuma akwai al'ummar Yahudawa, ba kuma su da ƙasa. To me kuma ake buƙata, sai a saka dutse mai daraja a cikin zobe, a haɗa wannan al'umma da wannan ƙasa? Dole ne a shawo kan masu ƙasar [Turkawa] tare da gamsar da su cewa wannan aure yana da amfani, ba ga [al'ummar Yahudawa] da ƙasar kawai ba, har ma da kansu.1

In its initial stage, Zionism was conceived by its pioneers as a movement wholly depending on mechanical factors: there is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without a people, and, on the other hand, there exists the Jewish people, and it has no country. What else is necessary, then, than to fit the gem into the ring, to unite this people with this country? The owners of the country [the Turks] must, therefore, be persuaded and convinced that this marriage is advantageous, not only for the [Jewish] people and for the country, but also for themselves.1

Ba Zangwill ko Weizmann ba ne suka yi nufin waɗannan ƙididdigar yawan jama'a a zahiri ba. Ba su nufin cewa babu mutane a Palestine ba, sai dai cewa babu mutanen da suka cancanci a yi la'akari da su a cikin tsarin ra'ayoyin son kai na Turawan Turai da suka mamaye lokacin. A wannan fanni, wata magana da Weizmann ya yi wa Arthur Ruppin, shugaban sashen mulkin mallaka na Hukumar Yahudawa, tana da matuƙar bayyana gaskiya.

Neither Zangwill nor Weizmann intended these demographic assessments in a literal fashion. They did not mean that there were no people in Palestine, but that there were no people worth considering within the framework of the notions of racist European supremacy that then held sway. In this connection, a comment by Weizmann to Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonisation department of the Jewish Agency, is particularly revealing.

Lokacin da Ruppin ya tambayi Weizmann game da 'yan asalin Larabawan Falasdinu, Weizmann ya amsa: "Turawan Ingila sun gaya mana cewa a can akwai wasu dubu ɗari na 'yan kuma (Ibrananci: kushim, baƙaƙen fata), kuma ga irin waɗannan babu wata daraja a gare su."2

When asked by Ruppin about the indigenous Palestinian Arabs, Weizmann replied: ‘The British told us that there are there some hundred thousand niggers [Hebrew: kushim, negroes] and for those there is no value.’2

Kalmar "nigger" a cikin Turancin Ingilishi kalma ce ta wariya ta fararen fata da ake amfani da ita wajen cin mutuncin Bakaken fata da mutanen Afirka. Ma'anarta ta wulakanci tana kama da wata kalma ta wulakanci a Ingilishi, "philistine", wadda fararen fatar Birtaniya suka karɓa daga son zuciya na Littafi Mai Tsarki suka yaɗa a harshen yau da kullum. To sai dai a cikin al'adun wariyar launin fata na mulkin mallaka da Weizmann da abokan aikinsa suka rayu a cikinsu, ambatar mutanen asalin Falasɗinu da "nigger" zai zama abin da ake yi ba tare da tunani ba, abu ne na halitta. Yana maimaita wariyar Weizmann ta ƙidayar jama'a da kuma Orientalism na Littafi Mai Tsarki na Shaftesbury, Zangwill kansa ya bayyana ainihin ma'anar taken nasa a shekara ta 1920 cikin bayyananniyar magana abin yabawa.

In the English language, the word nigger is a White racist slur directed at Black and African people. Its derogatory connotations echo another pejorative English word, philistine, which White Britain borrowed from biblical prejudices and popularised in daily parlance. However, in the White racist colonial culture within which Weizmann and co. operated, the reference to the indigenous people of Palestine as nigger would have been instinctive and natural. Echoing Weizmann’s demographic racism and Shaftesbury’s biblical Orientalism, Zangwill himself spelled out the actual meaning of his slogan with admirable clarity in 1920:

Idan Lord Shaftesbury bai yi daidai ba a zahiri wajen kwatanta Falasdinu a matsayin ƙasar da babu mutane a cikinta, to a gaskiya ya yi daidai, domin babu wata al'ummar Larabawa da ke zaune cikin haɗin kai na kusa da ƙasar, suna amfani da albarkatunta kuma suna ba ta wata alama ta musamman: a mafi kyawun hali akwai sansanin Larabawa kawai. (Zangwill 1920: 104; duba kuma Kamel 2015)

If Lord Shaftesbury was literally inexact in describing Palestine as a country without a people, he was essentially correct, for there is no Arab people living in intimate fusion with the country, utilising its resources and stamping it with a characteristic impress: there is at best an Arab encampment. (Zangwill 1920: 104; see also Kamel 2015)

Ƙarfin dangantaka tsakanin muradun cikin gida na Birtaniya da na daular ta, tare da masu fafutukar Yahudawa na Zionist (musamman Chaim Weizmann, 1874‒1952) da siyasar annabci ta Zionist ta Kirista, sun kai ga Sanarwar Balfour ta 1917, wadda ta yi alkawarin "gidan kasa na Yahudawa" a Falasdinu (Anderson, I. 2005: 1, 57‒58). Sannan, a matsayinta na babbar daular duniya, Birtaniya ta ba da izini a karon farko ga yakin neman Zionist na mallakar Falasdinu. Wannan takarda mai cike da rigima, mai kwanan wata 2 ga Nuwamba, Sakataren Harkokin Waje Arthur James Balfour (daga baya Lord Balfour) ya fitar da ita a cikin sigar wasika zuwa wani fitaccen mai goyon bayan kungiyar Zionist Bayahude dan Birtaniya, Lionel Walter (Lord) Rothschild, yana bayyana goyon bayan Birtaniya ga Zionism na siyasa:

The interplay between British domestic and imperial considerations, Jewish Zionist lobbyists (especially Chaim Weizmann, 1874‒1952) and Christian Zionist prophetic politics would lead to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which promised a ‘Jewish homeland’ in Palestine (Anderson, I. 2005: 1, 57‒58). Then an imperial world power, Britain gave sanction for the first time to the Zionist campaign for possession of Palestine. This highly controversial document, dated 2 November, was issued by Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour (later Lord Balfour), in the form of a letter to a prominent British Jewish supporter of the Zionist movement, Lionel Walter (Lord) Rothschild, declaring British support for political Zionism:

Gwamnatin Mai Martaba ta Sarauniya tana kallon kafa wata muhimmiyar mazauni ga al'ummar Yahudawa a Falasdinu da idon alheri, kuma za ta yi iyakar ƙoƙarinta wajen sauƙaƙa cimma wannan manufa, tare da fahimtar cewa babu abin da za a aikata da zai cutar da haƙƙoƙin farar hula da na addini na al'ummomin da ba Yahudawa ba waɗanda ke zaune a Falasdinu, ko haƙƙoƙi da matsayin siyasa da Yahudawa ke morewa a kowace ƙasa. (An nakalto daga Said 1980: 3)

Her Majesty’s Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. (Quoted in Said 1980: 3)

Ko da yake ƙungiyar Yahudawan Sihiyoniyya ta riga ta fara jerin taruka na ƙasashen duniya kuma ta kafa ƙananan mazaunin Yahudawa a Falasɗinu a farkon karni na 20, goyon bayan da babbar ƙasar mulkin mallaka ta zamanin ya bai wa Sihiyoniyya ne ya canza aikin Sihiyoniyya zuwa babban aikin mamaya na mazauna Turai a Falasɗinu.

Although the Zionist Jewish movement had already initiated a series of international congresses and established small Jewish colonies in the early 20th century Palestine, it was the sponsorship of Zionism by the leading imperial power of the age that would transform the Zionist project into a major European settler-colonial project in Palestine.

Legacy na Balfour ta zama ba za a iya raba ta ba da Sanarwar goyon bayan Sahyoniyanci da ya fitar a 1917. Dalilan sanarwar sun yi sarkakiya. Salon Kiristanci-Sahyoniyanci na Balfour ya samo asali ne daga kiyayya mai yawa ga Yahudawa, da tsananta zato game da "ikon Yahudawan Sahyoniyanci", da tsoron kwararar Yahudawa da yawa daga Gabashin Turai zuwa Birtaniya. A matsayinsa na Firayim Minista, Balfour ya zartar da Dokar Baƙi ta 1905, wadda babbar manufarta ita ce takaita shigar Yahudawan Gabashin Turai Birtaniya. Brian Klug ya faɗa cikin shakku cewa: 'Hana Yahudawa shiga Birtaniya da korar su zuwa Falasdinu sassa biyu ne na tsabar kuɗi ɗaya ta kiyayya ga Yahudawa'.3 Anan, masana tarihin Sahyoniyanci sukan yi watsi da bambanci tsakanin dalilai/manufofi da hujja, su kuma kama jawabin Balfour na Kiristanci-Sahyoniyanci bayan yaƙi domin su tabbatar da Sanarwarsa. Amma dole ne a yi la'akari da manufofin cikin gida na Balfour na dabaru da kishin ƙasa, musamman ƙoƙarinsa da manufofinsa da aka rubuta sosai na dakatar da kwararar Yahudawan Gabashin Turai zuwa Birtaniya, a duk wani yunkuri na tantance dalilan da suka sa aka yi Sanarwar, da kuma mummunan sakamakon da alƙawarin Balfour ya haifar wa Falasdinu a dogon lokaci.

Balfour’s legacy became inseparable from the pro-Zionist Declaration he issued in 1917. The reasons for the declaration were complex. Balfour’s brand of Christian Zionism was driven by a great deal of Judeophobia, hyped perceptions of ‘Zionist Jewish power’ and of fears of mass immigration of Jews from Eastern Europe to Britain. As Prime Minister, Balfour had passed the 1905 Aliens Act, the main object of which was to restrict the entry into Britain of Jews from Eastern Europe. Brian Klug put it rather sceptically: ‘Keeping Jews out of Britain and packing them off to Palestine were just two sides of the same antisemitic coin’.3 Here Zionist historians often chose to ignore the distinction between drivers/motives and justification and seize upon Balfour’s own post-war Christian Zionist rhetoric to justify his Declaration. Yet Balfour’s strategic and nationalist domestic motives and concerns, especially his well-documented efforts and policies to stop the influx of Eastern European Jewry into the UK, must be taken into consideration in any attempt to assess the motives behind the Declaration as well as the long-term catastrophic consequences for Palestine of that Balfour commitment.

Asalin tushen siyasa da addini na wannan kuduri na Birtaniya mai goyon bayan Zionism ya koma baya har zuwa ƙungiyar matsin lamba ta Kiristocin Furotesta masu goyon bayan Zionism, wadda aka kafa a birnin London a shekarun 1830 ta hannun Lord Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper; 1801‒1885). Shaftesbury ya fito ne daga manyan masu mulki na masarautar Birtaniya, kuma tsawon shekaru da dama yana cikin zuciyar kafuwar gwamnatin zamanin Victoria. Haka kuma ya shahara wajen bayar da shawarar manufofin gyaran al'umma a lokacin ƙololuwar zamanin Victoria. Shaftesbury ɗan Tory ne a Majalisar Commons, daga baya kuma ya zama memba a Lords, majalisar dattawa ta Majalisar Dokokin Birtaniya. Ya kasance surukin ɗan'uwan mahaifiyarsa Lord Melbourne (Firayim Minista a mafi yawan lokacin daga 1834 zuwa 1841), kuma surukin mahaifiyarsa, wato ɗan'uwan surukin Lord Palmerston (Ministan Harkokin Waje a mafi yawan shekarun 1840 da farkon shekarun 1850, sannan Firayim Minista a mafi yawan lokacin 1855‒1865) (Merkley 1998:

The religio-political roots of this British pro-Zionist commitment go all the way back to the Protestant Christian Zionist lobby which was established in London in the 1830s by Lord Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper; 1801‒1885). Shaftesbury came from the British aristocratic ruling elite and was for decades at the heart of the Victorian establishment. He also became well known for advocating socially reformist policies at the height of the Victorian era. Shaftesbury was a Tory member of the Commons, and later a member of the Lords, the upper house of Parliament in the United Kingdom. He was the nephew-in-law of Lord Melbourne (Prime Minister through most of the period from 1834 to 1841), and the stepson-in-law of Lord Palmerston (Foreign Minister for most of the 1840s and early 1850s, and then Prime Minister for most of the period 1855‒1865) (Merkley 1998:

13). Palmerston (1784–1865) ya yi aiki sau biyu a matsayin Firayim Minista a tsakiyar karni na 19. Tsawon mafi yawan shekaru daga 1830 zuwa 1865 ya mamaye manufofin ketare na Birtaniya, a lokacin da Birtaniya ke kololuwar ƙarfinta na mulkin mallaka. Shaftesbury ya samu mukamai masu ƙarfi daga gwamnatocin Birtaniya a jere, Palmerston kuwa ya ƙarfafa shi ya kuma tallafa masa da kuɗi, kuma dukkan mazan biyu sun taka rawa wajen kafa Ofishin Jakadancin Birtaniya a Urushalima a 1838 – ofishin da a karni na 19 Kiristocin Sihiyoniyawa suka mamaye, kuma yana tsakiyar shirye-shiryen mulkin mallaka na Birtaniya waɗanda suka kai ga manufar Balfour a Falasdinu (Schölch 1992).

13). Palmerston (1784–1865) served twice as Prime Minister in the mid-19th century. For most of 1830 to 1865 he dominated British foreign policy when Britain was at the height of its imperialist power. Shaftesbury was offered positions of power by successive British governments, Palmerston encouraged and financially supported him and both men were instrumental in the establishment of the British Consulate in Jerusalem in 1838 – a Consulate which in the 19th century was dominated by Christian Zionists and was at the centre of British imperial schemes which led to the Balfour policy in Palestine (Schölch 1992).

A cikin Ingilishi, Shaftesbury mai kishin Kiristanci Furotesta kuma Kiristan Sayuniyya, shi ne mafi himma wajen yada da kuma yin roko domin maido da "tsohon mutanen Allah", kamar yadda ya kira Yahudawa (Tuchman 1982). Shi da da'irar masu tasiri da ya mamaye suna karkashin tasirin siyasar "Karshen Zamani" ta annabci, siyasar wa'azi da ke dogara ga Littafin Daniyel na Tsohon Alkawari, wadda suka yi imani za ta cika ta hanyar "dawowar zahiri" da "Maidowa" na Yahudawa zuwa Falasdinu. Yayin da ruguzawar Daular Usmaniyya ta kusa, goyon bayan Furotesta ga "maidowar Yahudawa" da mulkin mallakar Falasdinu ta hanyar tura mazauna ya karu a Birtaniya, kuma an ga hakan a matsayin abu mai matukar amfani ga daular Birtaniya mai fadada a Gabas ta Tsakiya. A tsakiya zuwa karshen karni na 19, Shaftesbury ya jagoranci kungiyar matsin lamba ta Kiristan Sayuniyya ta Birtaniya, wadda ta hada da manyan mutane na kafa irin su Lord Lindsay (Crawford 1847: 71), Lord Manchester, George Eliot, Holman Hunt da Hall Caine.

In particular, crusading Protestant Christian Zionist Shaftesbury was the most ardent propagator and lobbyist of the restoration of ‘God’s ancient people’, as he styled the Jews (Tuchman 1982). He and the influential circle he dominated were under the influence of the ‘End of Times’ prophetic politics – evangelising politics based on the Old Testament’s Book of Daniel – which they believed would be fulfilled by the ‘literal return’ and ‘Restoration’ of the Jews to Palestine. As the demise of the Ottoman Empire appeared to be approaching, the Protestant advocacy of ‘Jewish restorationism’ and settler-colonisation of Palestine increased in the UK and was seen as highly beneficial to the expanding British Empire in the Middle East. In the mid-to-late 19th century Shaftesbury led the British Christian Zionist lobby which included establishment figures such as Lord Lindsay (Crawford 1847: 71), Lord Manchester, George Eliot, Holman Hunt and Hall Caine.

Shaftesbury, wanda ya misalta mulkin mallaka na Furotesta na Victoria, kuma mai zaginbibiliya, shi ma mai ƙirƙirar tatsuniyoyi ne. Ya yi ta yaɗa tatsuniyar cewa Yahudawa a ko'ina da kuma koyaushe suna marmarin "komawa" zuwa ƙasarsu, kuma a ranar 4 ga Nuwamba, 1840

Epitomising Victorian Protestant imperialism, Bible-bashing Shaftesbury was also a myth-maker. He pushed zealously the myth of ubiquitous and perennial Jewish diaspora longing to ‘return’, and on 4 November 1840

Ya sanya talla a cikin jaridar Times (London):

he placed an advertisement in the Times (London):

MAYAR DA YAHUDAWA: An aika wata takarda ga sarakunan Furotesta na Turai game da batun mayar da al'ummar Yahudawa zuwa kasar Falasɗinu. Takardar da ake magana a kai, wadda wani yanayi na musamman na al'amura a Gabas ya tsara, tare da sauran alamomi masu ban mamaki na "alamomin zamani", ta koma ga alkawarin farko wanda ya tabbatar da wannan kasa ga zuriyar Ibrahim [Yahudawa]. (An nakalto daga Wagner 1995: 91)

RESTORATION OF THE JEWS: A memorandum has been addressed to the Protestant monarchs of Europe on the subject of the restoration of the Jewish people to the land of Palestine. The document in question, dictated by a peculiar conjunction of affairs in the East, and other striking ‘signs of the times’, reverts to the original covenant which secures that land to the [Jewish] descendant of Abraham. (Quoted in Wagner 1995: 91)

Shaftesbury ne ke da alhakin kai tsaye ga taken farfaganda "Ƙasar da ba ta da al'umma ga al'umma wadda ba ta da ƙasa", wanda daga baya ya zama wata muhimmiyar tatsuniyar Yahudawan Sihiyoniya: "Ƙasa wadda ba ta da mutane ga mutanen da ba su da ƙasa" (Masalha 1997; Hyamson 1950: 10, 12; Kamel 2015).

Shaftesbury was directly responsible for the propagandistic slogan ‘A country without a nation for a nation without a country’,4 later to be become a key Zionist Jewish myth: ‘A land without a people for a people without a land’ (Masalha 1997; Hyamson 1950: 10, 12; Kamel 2015).

Yayin kimanta muhimmancin ƙoƙarin sa na lallashi a kan makomar ƙungiyar Yahudawa masu goyon bayan Sahayoniyanci na Furotesta a Birtaniya, Donald Wagner ya rubuta:

Assessing the significance of his lobbying efforts on the fortunes of the Protestant Zionist movement in Britain, Donald Wagner writes:

لا يمكن المبالغة في تقدير تأثير اللورد شافتسبري على النخب السياسية البريطانية وقادة الكنيسة والمسيحي العادي. فقد ربما حدد جهوده وفكره السياسي الديني نبرة السياسة الاستعمارية الإنجليزية تجاه الشرق الأدنى، وبخاصة الأرض المقدسة، خلال المئة عام التالية. وقد ترجم بمفرده المواقف اللاهوتية لبرايتمان وهنري فينش وجون نلسون داربي [أبي الألفية الحديثة التدبيرية المتقدمة] إلى استراتيجية سياسية. وقد جمعت صلاته السياسية الرفيعة وحدسه العجيب بين الأمرين لتعزيز الرؤية الصهيونية المسيحية. (واغنر 1995: 92)

One cannot overstate the influence of Lord Shaftesbury on the British political elites, church leaders, and the average Christian layperson. His efforts and religious political thought may have set the tone for England’s colonial approach to the Near East and in particular the holy land during the next one hundred years. He singularly translated the theological positions of Brightman, Henry Finch, and John Nelson Darby [the father of modern premillennial dispensationalism]:5 see below]5 into a political strategy. His high political connections, matched by his uncanny instincts, combined to advance the Christian Zionist vision. (Wagner 1995: 92)

A shekara ta 1880, F. Laurence Oliphant (1829‒1888), ɗan majalisar dokoki, marubucin littattafan labari kuma Kirista mai bin ƙungiyar Evangelical, wanda ya bi tafarkin Shaftesbury, ya buga littafi mai suna The Land of Gilead (wanda aka sanya masa suna bisa ‘ƙasar Gilead’ da ke cikin Littafi Mai Tsarki), inda ya gabatar da shirin ‘maido da Yahudawa’ da kuma cikakken tsari na tsugunar da Yahudawa a gabashin Kogin Jordan. Ya roƙi majalisar Birtaniya da ta taimaka wa ƙaurar Yahudawa daga Rasha da Gabashin Turai zuwa Falasdinu. Ba abin mamaki ba ne cewa ya kuma goyi bayan a kwashe ‘yan asalin Falasdinu Larabawa zuwa wuraren keɓewa irin waɗanda ake ajiye ‘yan asalin Arewacin Amurka a ciki.7

In 1880 F. Laurence Oliphant (1829‒1888), MP, novelist and evangelical Christian, a follower of Shaftesbury, published a book entitled The Land of Gilead (named after the biblical ‘land of Gilead’),6 in which he presented a plan of ‘Jewish restoration’ and a detailed project for Jewish settlement east of the River Jordan. He urged the British parliament to assist Jewish immigration from Russia and Eastern Europe to Palestine. Not surprisingly he also advocated that indigenous Palestinian Arabs be removed to reservations like those of the indigenous inhabitants of North America7

(Sharif 1983: 68), ko kuma yana nuni ga akidar Bantustan wadda Afirka ta Kudu ta bunƙasa daga baya (Sharif 1983: 68; Wagner 1995: 93).

(Sharif 1983: 68), or hinting at the Bantustan ideology later developed by South Africa (Sharif 1983: 68; Wagner 1995: 93).

Wasu daga cikin 'yan Birtaniya, sakamakon hada-hadar addinin Furotesta da burin mulkin mallaka, sun rubuta litattafan labari na Kiristan Sihiyoniyya, suka kafa kungiyoyin bincike, kuma suka yi kira, a bainar jama'a da cikin sirri, ga "mayar da Yahudawa zuwa Falasdinu".8 Haka kuma, jerin binciken kayan tarihi a Gabas ta Tsakiya, aikin soji, da yawaitar littattafan tafiye-tafiye sun dada kwarin gwiwar mishaneri na Furotesta, jami'an Turai, da masana nazarin harshen Larabci, lamarin da ya kai ga shigar kai tsaye da manyan kasashen Turai cikin Kasar Mai Tsarki (Shepherd 1987; Osband 1989). Wannan sha'awar Turawa ga tarihin kayan tsoho ta bayyana a fili da wulakanta mutanen asalin Falasdinu da rayuwar kauyuka da garuruwan Falasdinawa na zamani. A kololuwar daular Birtaniya da zamanin Victoria, siyasar annabci ta "maido da addinin Littafi Mai Tsarki" ta tafi tare da karuwar shigar Birtaniya ta mulkin mallaka cikin "Gabas". Kasar Mai Tsarki a karni na 19 ta zama manufa mai jan hankali ga kasashen Turai da dama da ke nuna karfin mulkin mallakarsu a duniya. Yankin ya shirya don shigar Yammacin duniya, musamman a lokacin da Daular Usmaniyya ke nuna alamun rugujewar siyasa da tattalin arziki. Gasar kafa kasancewar kasashen Turai da muradan kasuwanci na mulkin mallaka a Gabas, musamman a Kasar Mai Tsarki, an rufe ta da ayyukan ilimi da nazarin Gabas (Said 1978). Daidai lokacin "tsere wajen mamaye Falasdinu" na Turawa, sassa daban-daban na ilimin Yammacin duniya, da mafi yawan majami'un Kirista na Yamma, sun nuna karuwar sha'awa ga Falasdinu. Sau da yawa, sha'awar kasashen waje ta bayyana ta hanyar kafa cibiyoyin Kirista, inda gyare-gyaren Usmaniyya bayan Yakin Crimea (1853-1856) suka ba wadanda ba Musulmi daidaiton hakki, ciki har da hakkin mallakar dukiya, ta haka suka hada kokarin mishaneri na Kirista da tasirin kasa. Muradun Allah da na kasa sun yi tafiya tare. Birtaniya ta fara wannan tun da wuri,9 kuma ba da dadewa ba Rasha ta bi sawunta,10

A combination of Protestant religious and imperialist considerations drove some Britons to produce Christian Zionist novels, to set up exploration societies and to advocate the ‘restoration of the Jews to Palestine’ in public and in private.8 Furthermore, a succession of archaeological discoveries in the Near East, military adventurism and the growing number of travelogues fired the imagination of Protestant missionaries, European officials and Arabist scholars and led to the direct involvement European powers in the Holy Land (Shepherd 1987; Osband 1989). This European obsession with the archaeological past was marked by a decided contempt for the indigenous people of Palestine and life in modern Palestinian villages and towns At the height of the British Empire and the Victorian era prophetic politics of ‘biblical restorationism’ went hand in hand with increasing British colonial involvement in the ‘Orient’. The Holy Land in the 19th century was an attractive target for several European nations which were flexing their colonial muscles around the globe. The region was ready for Western penetration, particularly while the Ottoman Empire was showing signs of political and economic disintegration. The race for a European national presence and colonial commercial interests in the East, and in the Holy Land in particular, was masked by scholarly activities and Oriental Studies (Said 1978). Coinciding with the European ‘scramble for Palestine’, various sectors of the Western academy, and most of the Western Christian churches, displayed an increasing interest in Palestine. Invariably foreign interest took the form of establishing Christian institutions – the Ottoman reforms after the Crimean War (1853‒1856) granted equal rights, including property rights, to non-Muslims – thereby uniting Christian missionary endeavour with national influence. The interests of God and country ran in parallel. The British moved early,9 and were soon emulated by the Russians,10

Germans,11 Austrians (Wrba 1996) and others, marking the beginning of extensive Western influence in Palestine, an influence which the Ottomans feared might be a prelude to attempting to recover Palestine as a Christian state.12 Such was the degree of Western penetration that the Austrian consul, the Count de Caboga, reported in 1880 that Jerusalem had become a European city, and Captain (later General Sir) Charles Warren (1840‒1927) of the British Royal Engineers and one of the key officers of the British Palestine Exploration Fund, who was sent to map the Old Testament topography of Jerusalem and investigate ‘the site of the temple’, noted: ‘[British] King Consul [James Finn] rules supreme, not over the natives of the city, but over strangers; but yet these strangers for the most part are the rightful owners, the natives, for the most part, are usurpers’ (Shepherd 1987: 127‒128).

Germans,11 Austrians (Wrba 1996) and others, marking the beginning of extensive Western influence in Palestine, an influence which the Ottomans feared might be a prelude to attempting to recover Palestine as a Christian state.12 Such was the degree of Western penetration that the Austrian consul, the Count de Caboga, reported in 1880 that Jerusalem had become a European city, and Captain (later General Sir) Charles Warren (1840‒1927) of the British Royal Engineers and one of the key officers of the British Palestine Exploration Fund, who was sent to map the Old Testament topography of Jerusalem and investigate ‘the site of the temple’, noted: ‘[British] King Consul [James Finn] rules supreme, not over the natives of the city, but over strangers; but yet these strangers for the most part are the rightful owners, the natives, for the most part, are usurpers’ (Shepherd 1987: 127‒128).

Masu adawa da Sihiyoniyanci na Furotesta da 'yan mulkin mallaka na Birtaniya sun yi imanin cewa ƙasar 'Yahudawa a Falasɗinu' za ta dace da mulkin kariya na Birtaniya a can, a kan babbar hanya zuwa Indiya. Daga ƙarshen karni na 19 zuwa tsakiyar karni na 20, fitattun Firayi Ministocin Birtaniya uku suna da dangantaka sosai da 'Sihiyoniyanci na Al'ummai' a Birtaniya: Benjamin Disraeli (1804‒1881), wanda ya yi nasara wajen tabbatar da iko da Mashigin Suez ga Birtaniya ta mulkin daular, David Lloyd George (1863‒1945), wanda gwamnatinsa ta fitar da Sanarwar Balfour ta 1917, da kuma Sir Winston Churchill, wanda ya kasance mai sadaukarwa ga Sihiyoniyanci na siyasa da daular Birtaniya tsawon kusan rabin karni, a ciki da wajen ofis (Sykes 1973: 45, 52, 207). Dukansu Disraeli da Lloyd George sun burge su da ra'ayoyin haɗuwa ko kusanci tsakanin Kiristanci da Yahudanci (Anderson, I.

Protestant Zionists and British imperialists believed that a ‘Jewish Palestine’ would be convenient for a British protectorate there along the main route to India. From the late 19th century to the middle of the 20th century three famous British prime ministers were closely associated with ‘Gentile Zionism’ in Britain: Benjamin Disraeli (1804‒1881), who was successful in securing for imperial Britain control of the Suez Canal, David Lloyd George (1863‒1945), whose government issued the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and Sir Winston Churchill, who for nearly half a century in and out of office was devoted to political Zionism and the British Empire (Sykes 1973: 45, 52, 207). Both Disraeli and Lloyd George were fascinated by the theories of amalgamation or affinity between Christianity and Judaism (Anderson, I.

2005: 60). Lloyd George, wani Bayahude Furotesta mai goyon bayan Sihiyoniyanci, an taba nakalto shi yana cewa:

2005: 60). Lloyd George, a Protestant Zionist, was once quoted as saying:

"Na koyi tarihin Yahudawa sosai fiye da tarihin al'ummata" (wanda Stein ya ambata, 1961: 142); kuma an yi wa Disraeli baftisma a matsayin Furotesta, amma ya ci gaba da sha'awar asalinsa na Yahudanci. Yana kwatanta Kiristanci na Furotesta a matsayin "cikakken Yahudanci", ya yi farin ciki da kwatanta kansa - kamar yawancin Kiristoci masu goyon bayan Sihiyoniyanci - a matsayin "shafin da ya ɓace" tsakanin Tsohon Alkawari da Sabon Alkawari (Johnson, P. 1993: 324). Mulkin mallakar Kiristanci mai wayewa na Disraeli ya haɗa halaye na wulakanci ga Yahudawa da manufofin mulkin mallaka a kan Gabas ta Tsakiya, manufofin da ya tabbatar da su ta hanyar kiran ra'ayoyin uba-uba da na nuna bambancin launin fata, waɗanda suka ɗauki mulkin mallaka a matsayin alamar abin da mawakin mulkin mallakar Birtaniya, Rudyard Kipling, zai kira "nauyin farar fata".13

‘I was taught far more history about the Jews than about the history of my own people’ (quoted by Stein 1961: 142); and Disraeli was baptised a Protestant, but he remained fascinated by his Jewish background. Describing Protestant Christianity as ‘completed Judaism’, he – like many Christian Zionists – delighted in describing himself as the ‘missing page’ between the Old and New Testaments (Johnson, P. 1993: 324). Disraeli’s civilising Christian imperialism combined patronising attitudes towards the Jews with imperialist foreign policies towards the Middle East, policies which he justified by invoking paternalistic and racist theories which saw imperialism as a manifestation of what Britain’s imperial poet, Rudyard Kipling, would refer to as ‘the white man’s burden’.13

Tsawon ƙarnoni, da kuma sama da shekara tamanin na Zionism na siyasa, Larabawan Falasdinu sun kasance rinjaye mai yawa a Falasdinu. Balfour ya san wannan gaskiya sosai lokacin da, a ranar 11 ga Agusta 1919, ya bayyana ra'ayoyinsa na mulkin mallaka a fili, ya rubuta:

For centuries, and for more than eighty years of political Zionism, the Palestinian Arabs were an absolute majority in Palestine. Balfour was fully aware of this fact when, on 11 August 1919, he frankly expressed his typically colonialist views and wrote:

Sahyoniyanci, ko daidai ne ko kuskure, ko mai kyau ne ko mara kyau, yana samun tushe ne a cikin al'adu na tsawon zamani, a cikin bukatun yanzu, da kuma bege na gaba, waɗanda suka fi zurfi da muhimmanci fiye da sha'awoyi da son zuciya na Larabawa 700,000 da suke zaune a yanzu a wannan tsohuwar ƙasa … Ra'ayin dasa ƙaramar ƙungiyar [Turawa] baƙi a kan al'ummar asali mafi rinjaye, ba tare da tuntuɓar ta ba, ba abin da zai firgita mutanen da suka yi aiki tare da Cecil Rhodes ko suka inganta mazauni na Turawa a Kenya ba ne. (An ambato daga Talmon 1965: 248, 250)

Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land … The idea of planting a [European] minority of outsiders upon an indigenous majority population, without consulting it, was not calculated to horrify men who had worked with Cecil Rhodes or promoted European settlement in Kenya. (Quoted in Talmon 1965: 248, 250)

A shekara ta 1925, Balfour ya ziyarci Falasdinu, kuma ya zama babban baƙo mai daraja a bikin buɗe Jami'ar Ibrananci ta Urushalima. Shugabannin ƙaramin Yishuv (matsugunin) Zionist na Turai sun tarbe shi da farin ciki.

In 1925 Balfour visited Palestine and was a key guest of honour at the opening of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He was greeted enthusiastically by the leadership of the small European Zionist Yishuv (settlement)

a Falasdinu, yayin da mafi yawan 'yan asalin Falasdinu suka tarbe shi da bakin tutoci.

in Palestine, while the majority of indigenous inhabitants of Palestine welcomed him with black flags.

Mabuɗin fahimtar gudummawar Birtaniya ga Nakba (bala'i) na Falasdinawa a tsakiyar karni na 20 yana cikin tsananin da wasu Kiristocin Birtaniya masu tsattsauran akidar dawowar Yahudawa (restorationists) suka rungumi aikin "gida ga Yahudawa" a Falasdinu; da yadda Littafi Mai Tsarki da "haƙƙoƙin Allah da alkawuran Allah" suka kasance a idanun irin su Firayim Minista na Birtaniya Lloyd George da Sakataren Harkokin Wajensa Arthur James Balfour (wanda ya fitar da Sanarwar Balfour); kuma gabaɗaya irin tasirin da siyasar Zionism ta yi a Yamma. Duk da cewa Sanarwar Balfour ta samo asali ne a wani ɓangare daga lissafin yaƙin Duniya na Farko, ba a fitar da ita a cikin wani gurbi na akida ba. Abinda ke cikinta ya nuna siyasar annabci ta Kiristocin Zionist wadda ta yi tushe sosai a cikin Birtaniya ta Furotesta mai mulkin mallaka a karni na 19 (Verete 1970).14 Wannan duka yana nufin cewa, tun farko, gaskiyar Falasdinu da Falasdinawa tana waje da tsarin wakilcin Yamma da na Zionist na "gida ga Yahudawa" a Falasdinu.

The key to understanding the contribution of Britain to the Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe) of the mid-20th century lies in the intensity with which some British Christian restorationists embraced the project of a ‘Jewish homeland’in Palestine; the way in which the Bible and ‘divine rights and divine promises’ were seen by the likes of British Prime Minister Lloyd George and his Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour (who issued the Balfour Declaration); and generally the extraordinary appeal political Zionism had in the West. Although the Balfour Declaration was partly motivated by First World War calculations, it was not issued in an ideological vacuum. Its content reflected the Christian Zionist prophetic politics which became deeply rooted in 19th century imperialist Protestant Britain (Verete 1970).14 This all meant that, from the beginning, the reality of Palestine and the Palestinians lay outside Western and Zionist representations of the ‘Jewish homeland’ in Palestine.

Bugu da ƙari, kamar yadda Edward Said ya yi bayani, "wurin gwagwarmayar Sahyoniyya bai kasance a Falasɗinu kaɗai ba"; babban wurin gwagwarmayar Sahyoniyya ya ci gaba da kasancewa har zuwa 1948 a manyan biranen ƙasashen Yamma, yayin da ainihin halin Falasɗinu da "turjiyar 'yan asalin ƙasar ga Sahyoniyawa" an raina ta ko an yi watsi da ita a Yamma (Said 1980: 22‒23). Ta hanyar cire gwagwarmayar daga Gabas ta Tsakiya, an hana Falasɗinawa (da Larabawa) wakiltar kansu, kuma an ɗauke su a matsayin waɗanda ba su da ikon yin hakan: "[Su] ba za su iya wakiltar kansu ba; dole ne a wakilce su" (wanda aka ambata a Said 1980).15 A yunƙurin sanya ƙungiyar Sahyoniyya ta zama abar sha'awa ga masu sauraron Yamma, shugabanninta ba kawai sun musanta wanzuwar mutanen Falasɗinu masu magana da Larabci ba; sun kuma wakilci Larabawa ga Yamma a matsayin wani abu da za a iya fahimta da sarrafawa ta wasu hanyoyi na musamman. Tsakanin Sahyoniyya da Yamma akwai, kuma har yanzu akwai, al'umma ɗaya ta harshe da akida; Larabawa ba sa cikin wannan al'umma. Zuwa babban mataki, wannan al'umma tana dogara ne akan al'adar Yamma ta ƙiyayya ga Musulunci musamman da Gabas gabaɗaya (Said 1979: 25‒26). Babban nasarar Sahyoniyawan Kiristoci da Yahudawa shi ne iya mamaye wurin da za su wakilci tare da bayyana Larabawa ga Yamma daga gare shi:

Furthermore, as Edward Said argued, the ‘site of the Zionist struggle was only partially in Palestine’; the crucial site of the Zionist struggle remained until 1948 in the capital cities in the West, while the reality of Palestine and ‘the native resistance to the Zionists was either played down or ignored in the West’ (Said 1980: 22‒23). By removing the struggle from the Middle East, the Palestinians (and Arabs) were prevented from representing themselves, and were deemed incapable of doing so: ‘[T]hey cannot represent themselves; they must be represented’ (quoted in Said 1980).15 In making the Zionist movement attractive to Western audiences, its leaders not only denied the existence of the Arabic-speaking people of Palestine; they represented the Arabs to the West as something that could be understood and managed in specific ways. Between Zionism and the West there was and still is a community of language and of ideology; Arabs were not part of this community. To a very great extent this community depends on a tradition in the West of enmity towards Islam in particular and the Orient in general (Said 1979: 25‒26). A major success of the Christian and Jewish Zionists has been their ability to occupy the space from which they were all to represent and explain the Arabs to the West:

[Zionistoci sun ɗauki kansu a matsayin wata al'umma da ta ɗan yi kama da ta Gabas, waɗanda suka 'yantar da kansu daga mafi munin ɓarnar Gabas, don su yi wa Larabawan Gabas bayani ga Yamma, su ɗauki alhakin bayyana yadda Larabawa suke a zahiri da kuma game da su, kuma kada su taɓa barin Larabawa su bayyana daidai da su a matsayin masu zama a Falasɗin. Wannan hanya ta ba Ziyoniyanci damar koyaushe ya bayyana duka yana cikin al'amuran rayuwar ƙasashen Gabas ta Tsakiya na asali kuma yana sama da su.] (Said 1980: 26)

[The] Zionists took it upon themselves as a partially ‘Eastern’ people who had emancipated themselves from the worst Eastern excesses, to explain the Oriental Arabs to the West, to assume responsibility for expressing what the Arabs were really like and about, never to let the Arabs appear equally with them as existing in Palestine. This method allowed Zionism always to seem both involved in and superior to the native realties of Middle Eastern existence. (Said 1980: 26)

Duk da irin waɗannan kalamai na Kiristoci da Yahudawa masu goyon bayan Sahyoniyya, shugabannin Sahyoniyya tun farko sun san cewa ba wai kawai akwai mutane a ƙasar ba, har ma mutane suna nan da yawa. Zangwill, wanda ya ziyarci Falasɗinu a shekara ta 1897 kuma ya fuskanci gaskiyar yawan jama'a, ya yarda a shekara ta 1905, a wani jawabi ga wata ƙungiyar Sahyoniyya a Manchester, cewa ‘Falasɗinu kanta tana da mazauna tuni. Pashalik na Urushalima ya riga ya cika da jama'a sau biyu fiye da Amurka, yana da mutum hamsin da biyu a kowane murabba'in mil, kuma ba su wuce kashi 25 cikin ɗari Yahudawa ba’ (Zangwill 1937: 210). Yawan ambaton al'ummar Falasɗinawa a rubuce-rubucen Sahyoniyya na farko yana nuna a fili cewa tun farkon mazaunin Sahyoniyya a Falasɗinu, wanda tarihin Sahyoniyya ke ƙididdige shi zuwa zuwan mambobin ƙungiyar Bilu ta Rasha a shekara ta 1882, Falasɗinawan Larabawa ba su kasance wani abu "wanda ba a gani" ko "ɓoye" ba. Haka kuma, binciken baya-bayan nan ya nuna cewa shugabannin Sahyoniyya sun damu da abin da suka kira ‘matsalar Larabawa’ (Ibrananci: Habe’ayah Ha’arvit) ko ‘Tambayar Larabawa’ (Ibrananci:

Despite such Christian and Jewish Zionist statements, however, the Zionist leaders from the outset were well aware that not only were there people on the land, but that people were there in large numbers. Zangwill, who had visited Palestine in 1897 and come face to face with the demographic reality, acknowledged in 1905 in a speech to a Zionist group in Manchester that ‘Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews’ (Zangwill 1937: 210). Abundant references to the Palestinian population in early Zionist texts show clearly that from the beginning of Zionist settlement in Palestine, which Zionist historiography dates to the arrival of the members of the Russian Bilu Society in 1882, the Palestinian Arabs were far from being an ‘unseen’ or ‘hidden’ presence. Moreover, recent studies have shown that Zionist leaders were concerned with what they termed the ‘Arab problem’ (Hebrew: Habe’ayah Ha’arvit) or the ‘Arab Question’ (Hebrew:

Hashelah Ha'arvit). Kamar yadda aka gani a rubuce-rubucensu, halayyar mafi yawan kungiyoyin Sahyoniyya da mazauna sabbin ƙauyuka game da al'ummar Falasdinawa ta asali, sun kama daga rashin kulawa da raina su zuwa nuna isa da girman kai na masu mulki. Misali mai kyau shi ne a rubuce-rubucen Moshe Smilansky, marubucin Sahyoniyya kuma shugaban kungiyar Labour wanda ya yi hijira zuwa Falasdinu a shekarar 1890:

Hashelah Ha’arvit). As seen in their writings, the attitudes prevailing among the majority of the Zionist groups and settlers concerning the indigenous Palestinian population ranged from indifference and disregard to patronising superiority. A typical example can be found in the works of Moshe Smilansky, a Zionist writer and Labour leader who immigrated to Palestine in 1890:

Kada mu yi wa fellahin na Larabawa zumunci sosai, don kada 'ya'yanmu su koyi hanyoyinsu, su kuma koyi daga munanan ayyukansu. Duk wanda yake da aminci ga Attaura ya guji munana da abin da yake kama da ita, ya kuma nisanci fellahin da halayensu na ƙasƙanci.

Let us not be too familiar with the Arab fellahin lest our children adopt their ways and learn from their ugly deeds. Let all those who are loyal to the Torah avoid ugliness and that which resembles it and keep their distance from the fellahin and their base attributes.

Lalle, akwai waɗanda suka nuna ƙin yarda da irin waɗannan halaye.

There were, certainly, those who took exception to such attitudes.

Ahad Ha'Am (Asher Zvi Ginzberg), wani mai tunani mai sassaucin ra'ayi na Yahudawan Rasha, ya ziyarci Falasdinu a shekarar 1891, ya kuma buga jerin kasidu a cikin jaridar Ibrananci Hamelitz wadanda suka soki sosai son kai da kishin kabila na Zionism na siyasa, da kuma cin zarafin manoman Falasdinawa da masu mulkin mallaka na Zionist suka yi.

Ahad Ha’Am (Asher Zvi Ginzberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891, published a series of articles in the Hebrew periodical Hamelitz that were sharply critical of the ethnocentricity of political Zionism as well as the exploitation of Palestinian peasantry by Zionist settlercolonists.

Ahad Ha'Am, wanda ya so ya jawo hankali ga gaskiyar cewa Falasdinu ba ƙasa marar mazauna ba ce kuma kasancewar wata al'umma a kan ƙasar yana haifar da matsaloli, ya lura cewa 'yan gwagwarmayar Sahyoniyya sun yi imani cewa harshen da Larabawa suke fahimta kawai shi ne na ƙarfi ... [Su] suna nuna wa Larabawa ƙiyayya da zalunci, suna ƙetare iyakokinsu ba bisa ƙa'ida ba, suna dukan su cikin wulakanci ba tare da dalili ba ma har suna yin fahariya da hakan, kuma babu wanda ya tashi ya dakatar da wannan mummunan kuma haɗari hali. (An ambato daga Masalha 1992: 7)

Ahad Ha’Am, who sought to draw attention to the fact that Palestine was not an empty territory and that the presence of another people on the land posed problems, observed that the Zionist ‘pioneers’ believed that the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force ... [They] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency. (Cited in Masalha 1992: 7)

Ya yanke zuciyar al'amarin lokacin da ya bayyana cewa halin tsangwama na 'yan mulkin mallaka ga manoman 'yan asali ya samo asali ne daga fushinsu "ga wadanda suke tunatar da su cewa akwai wata al'umma a kasar Isra'ila wadda take zaune a can tun dadewa kuma ba ta da niyyar barin wurin".

He cut to the heart of the matter when he ventured that the colonists’ aggressive attitude towards the native peasants stemmed from their anger ‘towards those who reminded them that there is still another people in the land of Israel that have been living there and does not intend to leave’.

Wani mai ƙaura na farko, Yitzhak Epstein, wanda ya isa Falasdinu daga Rasha a shekara ta 1886, ya yi gargaɗi ba kawai game da illolin ɗabi'a na mulkin mallakar Zionist ba, har ma game da haɗarin siyasa da ke cikin wannan aiki. A shekara ta 1907, a lokacin da sayen filaye da Zionists ke yi a Galilee ke tada adawa tsakanin manoman Falasdinawa da aka kora daga filayen da masu mallakar ƙasa da ba sa zama a wurin suka sayar, Epstein ya rubuta wata makala mai cece-kuce mai taken ‘The Hidden Question’, inda ya soki sosai hanyoyin da Zionists suka bi wajen sayen filayen Larabawa. A ra'ayinsa, waɗannan hanyoyi da ke haifar da korar manoman Larabawa za su haifar da rikicin siyasa a nan gaba.

Another early settler, Yitzhak Epstein, who arrived in Palestine from Russia in 1886, warned not only of the moral implications of Zionist colonisation but also of the political dangers inherent in the enterprise. In 1907, at a time when Zionist land purchases in the Galilee were stirring opposition among Palestinian peasants forced off land sold by absentee landlords, Epstein wrote a controversial article entitled ‘The Hidden Question’, in which he strongly criticised the methods by which Zionists had purchased Arab land. In his view, these methods entailing dispossession of Arab farmers were bound to cause political confrontation in the future.

Abin da ke nuna a cikin fushin da kafuwar Sahyoniyawa ta mayar da martani ga rubutun Epstein shi ne manyan halaye guda biyu na tunanin Sahyoniyawa na yau da kullum: imani cewa mallakar filaye da Yahudawa suka yi ta fi muhimmanci a kan la'akari na ɗabi'a, da kuma goyon bayan wata Yishuv (mazauni) mai ware kai da kuma ƙin shigar da wasu a Falasɗinu.

Reflected in the Zionist establishment’s angry response to Epstein’s article are two principal features of mainstream Zionist thought: the belief that Jewish acquisition of land took precedence over moral considerations, and the advocacy of a separatist and exclusionist Yishuv (colony) in Palestine.

Ta bin sahun turawan mulkin-mallaka masu mamaye ƙasashe, kafin Yakin Duniya na Farko wasu shugabannin Zionist (musamman Theodor Herzl a littafinsa na labari Altneuland), sun yi tunanin hakikanin Falasdinu, da amfanin kayan duniya da mamayar Yahudawan Turai za ta kawo wa Falasdinu, a matsayin abu mai kama da akidar nuna fifiko ta "nauyin farin mutum". Duk da haka, a lokacin mulkin Ingila (Mandate), ya bayyana ga shugabancin Zionist cewa korar mazauna asalin Falasdinu daga muhallansu da "canja su" ta hanyar tsari shi ne sharadin da babu makawa na aikin Zionist (Wiemer 1983: 26; Masalha 1992).

Following in the footsteps of European settler-colonialists, before the First World War some Zionist leaders (notably Theodor Herzl in his Zionist novel Altneuland), conceived the reality of Palestine, and the material benefits European Jewish colonisation would bring to Palestine, to be similar to the supremacist ideology of the ‘white man’s burden’. During the Mandatory period, however, it became clear to the Zionist leadership that a systematic dislocation and ‘transfer’ of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine was the conditio sine qua non of the Zionist enterprise (Wiemer 1983: 26; Masalha 1992).

A cikin littafinsa mai muhimmanci, Orientalism (1978), Edward W. Said ya soki karatun "Oriental Studies" na Yammacin duniya sosai, ya kuma bayyana zato-zato da ke tattare da wannan fanni. Ya kuma kammala cewa Nazarin Littafi Mai Tsarki wani bangare ne kuma tsawaitawa na tunanin Orientalism na Yammacin duniya, wanda aka gina ba tare da wani mai karatu na "Oriental"/Balarabe/Musulmi a zuciya ba. A ra'ayin Said, a cikin wannan tunanin Orientalism na Littafi Mai Tsarki, mazaunan asali na Falasdinu an nuna su a matsayin marasa iya aiki tare da wayewar kan kasa. Masana Littafi Mai Tsarki, suna bin sawun masu Orientalism na Yammacin duniya, sun mayar da hankali kan tambayoyin tarihi da kayan tarihi. A cikin The Question of Palestine, wanda ya fito shekara biyu bayan Orientalism, Said ya kuma yi kokarin bayyana yadda aka goge Falasdinawa daga tarihi. A gare shi, share gaskiyar Falasdinu ya ta'allaka ne kan muhimman batutuwa uku: na farko, fahimtar yadda ake wakiltar Falasdinu, Falasdinawa da Musulunci a Yamma: littafin Said Covering Islam (1981) ya kamata a dauke shi a matsayin wani bangare na wata trilogy wanda ya hada da Orientalism (1978) da The Question of Palestine (Said 1980; Ashcroft da Ahluwalia 2001: 125). A ra'ayin Said, wakilcin Musulunci a Yamma muhimmin bangare ne na batun Falasdinu saboda ana amfani da su wajen yin shiru da Falasdinawa, mafi yawansu Musulmi ne (Said 1980; Ashcroft da Ahluwalia 2001: 128); na biyu, fahimtar "gwagwarmaya tsakanin tabbatarwa da musantawa"; na uku, fahimtar halin Orientalism na Yammacin duniya ga Larabawa da Musulunci; son zuciyar launin fata na Yammacin duniya, musamman labarin Yammacin duniya na gwagwarmaya tsakanin karfin "wayewa" na mazauna Yahudawa na Turai masu kafa Zionist da Larabawan Gabas "marasa wayewa", "cin amana" da lalatattu (Said 1980: 25‒28). Wannan tsarin magana da aka gina shi a kan Littafi Mai Tsarki yana ƙunshe da (a) tsara tarihi, "ta yadda wannan tarihi yanzu yake bayyana kamar yana tabbatar da ingancin da'awar Zionist ga Falasdinu, don haka yana raina da'awar Falasdinawa" (Said 1980: 8), da kuma (b) halasta mulkin mallaka na mazauna da Zionist ke yi a Falasdinu, wani tsari da bai ƙare ba tare da kafa Isra'ila a 1948.

In his seminal work, Orientalism (1978), Edward W. Said subjected Western ‘Oriental Studies’ to a devastating critique and exposed the underlying presumptions of the discipline. He also concluded that Biblical Studies were part of and an extension of the Western Orientalist discourse, which had been constructed without any ‘Oriental’/Arab/Muslim reader in view. For Said, in this biblical Orientalist discourse the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine were presented as incapable of unified action and national consciousness. The biblical scholars, following in the footsteps of the Western Orientalists, concentrated on historical and archaeological questions. In The Question of Palestine, which came out two years after Orientalism, Said also tried to explain the erasure of Palestinians from history. For him, the deletion of the reality of Palestine centred on three key issues: first, understanding the representation of Palestine, the Palestinians and Islam in the West: Said’s book Covering Islam (1981) should be treated as part of a trilogy which includes Orientalism (1978) and The Question of Palestine (Said 1980; Ashcroft and Ahluwalia 2001: 125). For Said, the representations of Islam in the West are an important part of the question of Palestine because they are used to silence the Palestinians, the majority of whom are Muslims (Said 1980; Ashcroft and Ahluwalia 2001: 128); second, understanding the ‘contest between an affirmation and a denial’; third, understanding Western Orientalist attitudes towards Arabs and Islam; Western racial prejudices, and especially the Western narrative of a contest between the ‘civilising’ forces of the Zionist European settlers and the ‘uncivilised’, ‘treacherous’ and degenerate Oriental Arabs (Said 1980: 25‒28). This biblically framed discourse entails (a) the shaping of history, ‘so that this history now appears to confirm the validity of Zionist claims to Palestine, thereby denigrating Palestinians claims’ (Said 1980: 8), and (b) the Zionist legitimisation of Zionist settler-colonisation in Palestine, a process that did not end with the creation of Israel in 1948.